Since prehistoric ages The Art highlights our lives, adds beauty and happiness and cultivates the taste among the people. However, nowadays creative projects became very pricey and can not bring pay-off to its authors. Some people think that the government should pay for those projects and, of course, observe precisely how those funds are being spent.
This is quite obvious that no structure except government knows nations cultural needs best. It can evaluate which sphere of cultural life have the necessity of development and achieve its goals of public loyalty by funding a specific field of The Art, controlling budget by giving maintenance only to projects they are interested in.
However, funding The Art selectively can lead artists to the lack of freedom in expressing themselves. In other words, then those who have power use money to regulate cultural life, it can limit the imagination and put artists into borders they would be scared to cross. Thus, here comes the censorship, which has nothing in common with the main democracy principles. For example, similar situation was in the Soviet Union, there solely the government controlled The Art and therefore the only career an artist could pursue is praising the Communist Party by his creations.
As an alternative of letting a government to control spending money on The Art, a non-governmental independent organization could be established. It must consist of the best cultural activists from a country. This would add a certain level of budget control and would guarantee there are no limits for The Art.
To conclude with, I believe that funding The Art is one of the main tasks of a state, but the purpose of it should be development, not making it to serve government political needs.
